Anglo-Audiophile: The Continued Studies

There is a tendency, or I should say I have a tendency, to frame a year within a typical school year. A new year starts in September (or whenever a new year of classes start) and ends around May or June (or whenever classes end). I realize that a new year starts on January 1st, but when I think about my year I’m thinking between September and June. The summer kind of acts as a stand alone thing that I didn’t account when I started this entry. However when one does a year end list, it’s generally accepted that one is writing about the time between January 1st and December 31st of X year.

So how was this year culturally for me? Odd. I’ve discovered that I listen to fewer and fewer actual albums and more and more listen to playlists that are made up of songs from every year of music I have in my collection. This means that I generally associate a song not with its year of release, or even the album it originally appeared on, but with the year I listened to it and the playlist it was a member of. That’s how I end up every year marveling at the fact that what I listened to wasn’t actually released in the year I associate it with but usually with the previous year or even longer ago. Also, thanks mostly to law school, I haven’t read all that much this year. I’ve probably watched more TV than I’ve read books which is kind of sad but I’ve found that as I get older I get even more picky about what I read and with the limited amount of time I now have for just about everything, the last thing I want to do is read some more after reading upwards of a 100 really dense pages of legal jargon. Moving to Boston though has been a boon for my theater going life. I’ve seen more ballet productions this year than I have in probably my entire life. I got to see Yo-Yo Ma perform with the Boston Symphony and hear Handel’s Messiah live after years of listening to it on CD. I also finally got to see “A Doll’s House” which is probably one of my favorite plays that I was assigned to read in high school (and just generally one of my favorite plays). And of course there are the hours of television I watched, some live, some on Netflix. This year has been a hodge-podge of low and high art for me some of which is difficult to categorize as “best” or “favorite.” “Follies” is not one of my favorite musicals by Stephen Sondheim, but getting to see Bernadette Peters perform live is something that one doesn’t forget very soon. Finally getting to go to a comedy gig and having it be one of my favorite British comedians is also a once in a life time experience, even if I can’t say it was the best thing I’ve ever seen. 2011 though has been a year of cultural enrichment for better and worse. So now let’s categorize it and par it down, like people like to do.

Albums I Actually Listened to This Year

As I mentioned I tend to listen more to individual songs on playlists as opposed to entire albums. However there were 5 albums I listened to this year. Generally speaking if I listen to an album it means I like it. And if it’s on this list it’s because I liked it. So here are my top 5 albums of this year:

1. “The Wombats Proudly Present…This Modern Glitch” by the Wombats
2. “The Future is Medieval” by the Kaiser Chiefs
3. “Aim and Ignite” by Fun.*
4. “21″ by Adele**
5. “Welcome to Condale” by Summer Camp***

The Songs of 2011

This list, with the exception of the songs by the Kaiser Chiefs, the Wombats, and Adele, was largely aquired within the last 2 months. Up until then I was doing fine just listening to what I had been listening to since 2010. However around late October my current collection began to bore me so I sought out new music. This was done largely by seeing what my friends had been listening to on Spotify and by seeing what had been released recently and was good at least according to Zune Marketplace. And of course there was some music heard during commercials and on TV shows but most of those were not released in 2011, so they don’t count. Here are the top 10 songs of 2011 in no particular order:

• “Cousin in the Bronx” by the Kaiser Chiefs
• “Rumour Has It” by Adele
• “Everybody Wants Somebody” by Patrick Stump
• “Raconte-Moi Une Histoire” by M83****
• “Still Life” by the Horrors
• “Ahead of the Wave” by Non-Commissioned Officers
• “We Are Young” by Fun.*****
• “Gangsta” by tUnE-yArDs
• “You and I” by Lady Gaga
• “Anti-D” by the Wombats

I did go see a few movies. Of the handful I saw in theatres the two I liked the best were “Fright Night” and “The Muppets” neither of which were critical darlings, though at least “The Muppets” did really well in the box office. Of the three****** books I read this year the only one I would recommend is How The Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll the subtitle of which is “An Alternative History of American Popular Music” which goes a long way to explaining what the book is actually about. I couldn’t possibly recommend what TV you should watch because much like music (which I feel I can recommend) what you spend your time watching is fairly individualized. Also, I watch the same five shows on repeat so I have a fairly narrow view of what’s good and what isn’t.

So that’s 2011. I hope your year in culture was good and here’s to next year being even better.

*Two things. The band is called “Fun.” The period is part of the name. Also, this album was actually released in 2010, but since I’ve been listening to this and Summer Camp nearly non-stop for the past few days, I’m including it. Sue me.

**Adele is probably the only artist within my top music lists that was included by anyone else. As is typical my taste in music largely diverges from what is considered popular by other people.

***I discovered this album because a friend of mine from my time in London was listening to this album quite a lot on Spotify. thanks Jade!

****Everyone loves “Midnight City” so much. I think this song is much, much better. Besides, who wouldn’t want to turn into a magical frog?

*****I first heard this song as a cover by the cast of Glee, so that’s probably the only song I heard on TV that wasn’t released in 2010 or earlier. However, as is typical, the original is better.

******This is a vast exageration. I don’t know how many books I read this year, but it wasn’t a very large number and far fewer than I would have liked.

I am by no means an expert at the game of law school. I’m currently writing this entry as a way to avoid studying for finals* which is an indication of something.** However what is you need to know to succeed at law school you learn fairly quickly. Sure I may still be confused by what the hell a bailment*** is, but I do know some basics on surviving law school. If you’re considering law school, I’d take these suggestions under your wing for the future.

Don’t Live Alone
There’s a certain temptation, particularly if you didn’t have the best roommate(s) experience in undergrad to live on your own at least for the first year of law school. This is a very bad idea. Particularly if you’re moving to a new city (like I did) your roommates will be your first life line and even after you make friends will still people with whom you can bitch. If you’re really lucky they’ll be going to law school and even if it’s a different school or they have different teachers you’ll all be able to complain about how tough classes are and bounce ideas about what reasonable care**** is of each other after spending way too much time in the library. Living alone can be a death knell to your succeeding at law school because it can lead to introversion which in turn leads to insanity.***** You may not want to live with the same people once your lease is up in August or September, but having at least one other person to complain to will help immensely.

Make Friends, Even if it Hurts
I am not an outgoing social person. It takes me awhile to make friends. However even the most introverted person will be able to make friends in law school for one very special reason: You’re all going through mental bootcamp. It’s a bonding experience that can’t be underestimated. Making friends though, much like with having people to live with, will make the torture less torturous. Having buddies to moan to and drink with****** helps when the days get longer and the hours spent in the library become too much. Good friends will convince you that you’re not making the biggest mistake of your life and may even help you get better grades. Humans are naturally social creatures, but law school proves just how valuable friends can be. So make some, even if socializing goes against every fiber of your being.

Don’t Skip A Single Reading (or Class)
Full disclosure: My freshmen year I did not have the best attendance record. I got better, but I always allowed myself to miss one or two classes in any given course in a single semester. Also, keeping up with reading was not always my forte. Just ask my Ancient Greek history professor. However if you want to have any hope of understanding the material presented in law school, let alone doing well on your exams, you have to do all of the reading. If that means sitting in the library for four+ hours so be it. First of all there is always the chance you’ll be cold called on******* in class and trust me, it’s not fun trying to explain a case you haven’t read. Secondly, as confusing as some of the judges can be, reading the cases is vital to understanding the underlying principles at work. You can read all the chestnuts on torts you want, but if you don’t at least know the basic outline of a case (which, depending on the era in which a case was written is all you’re going to get) those summaries won’t help you a bit. The same goes for classes. Yes sometimes it seems like the professors let students meander with no really direction into a land of slippery concrete,******** but ultimately it’s to your benefit to go to every single class. You just never know when the professor is going to cut off the idiots and make sense of future interests.*********

Don’t Freak Yourself Out
Law school is hard. It’s intense and all consuming. However you’ll only make it worse for yourself if you psych yourself out. Whether that’s by buying into some garbage BarBri is trying to sell you or watching “The Paper Chase” you’re doing yourself a disservice if you let the stress get to you too much. Relax every once in a while, have a beer (or five) on a occasion.********** Go see a movie with friends or go to a museum if that’s your thing. Spend an entire day doing nothing. People will go on about how you have to study every day or you’re going to fail everything, but that’s simply not true. Relaxation is just as important as studying if you want to succeed at law school. And not relaxing ends badly. Usually the people who burn out the quickest are the ones who didn’t take sometime to do nothing. Law school is a marathon, not a sprint. Take sometime to smell the flowers.

So that’s my advice. If you do plan on going to law school you’ll hear a lot of variations on what I’ve said and some real gunners telling you to hole up in the library and never leave. Ultimately you do what’s best for you, otherwise you’ll leave school with a massive amount of debt wondering why ever thought this was a good idea. Best of luck either way.

*Evil, evil finals

**Namely not wanting to study

***Contracts. I’m pretty sure that’s from contracts.

****Reasonable care is dependent on your judge. Much like everything in negligence based torts.

*****This isn’t necessarily true. But it could happen. Law school does funny things to one’s brain.

******The first of many times I will mentioning drinking. There’s a reason lawyers are considered alcoholics.

*******This is when a professor calls on you out of the blue (aka you didn’t volunteer) and asks you to explain the facts of a case. It is hell.

********True story. Someone brought this up in torts. It will never die.

*********Property. I could go on, but it’s confusing.

**********So much drinking. Also, you don’t have to drink like a fish to have fun in law school. It’s just most everyone else will be because that’s just how stressful law school is. However a designated driver/walker is always good, so if you don’t want to drink that’s fine.

Towards the end of my freshmen seminar the teacher, Prof. Campbell, started using a more Socratic based method in discussing the novels we were reading. I found this incredibly annoying because a) I like straight forward answers to the questions I ask and b) to my mind it became more about how well I and my classmates could b.s. and less about actually knowing anything. I reported this back to my dad who sagely nodded his head and said “that’s the method they use in law school. If you don’t like it now you probably shouldn’t go to law school.” I nodded back and added that to the very long list of reasons why I wouldn’t be going to law school.
Three months in and I can’t say my opinion of the Socratic method has changed all that much. I still find it annoying when my classmates use the method to try and show off how smart they think they are but I can also see why it’s used in law school. The point of it, at least to my mind, is to try and get you to see both sides of an argument or at least see why a case or rule has been formulated the way it has. Granted most of my classes don’t use the method as the only way of teaching (because at least two my classes, contracts and civil procedure, would fall apart if they did). Particularly in torts* though it makes sense for the professor to probe your mind with open ended questions because so much of torts is speculative and opinion based.** If you can’t see both sides or at least understand how the other side might think you’ll be screwed as a lawyer when it will be your job to predict w hat the other side will say.
Still because I spend between 3 1/2 hours and 2 1/2 hours four days a week thinking in this manner*** I have a far lower tolerance for intellectual “discussions” than I ever did in college. Talking theory is all well and good when you haven’t been doing it all day, but when you have the last thing you want to do is go home and poke at your brain some more. Because that’s what it feels like. It feels like your teacher has been poking your brain for an hour and ten minutes. And that’s what law school is for the first year or so. Brain poking.

*McDonald’s coffee spill case. Liable. Theft. Battery and assault. Trespass. Car crashes. Falling on your butt in a restaurant. The vast majority of cases that aren’t criminal cases are torts cases.
**Do you know what a reasonable person is? ‘Cuz trust me when I say, that definition is not at all clear and largely dependent on the judge. That’s what I mean by opinion based.
***Plus the countless hours I spend in the library. I swear I spend more time in that place than I ever did in undergrad.

I am not naturally a bus person. I will use a bus when I have to, but I prefer trains to buses. There’s something about not having to deal with traffic that makes traveling just so much nicer. I would say, and this really is a personal opinion, that by and large London and Washington are cities where you don’t have to use the bus system unless you’re feeling really lazy* because both cities are very walkable. I could pretty much avoid buses in London because I could either walk or I could get there via the Underground and the same can be said for DC by and large. Boston is something else though.

Boston as the T which is combination of light rail and subway largely depending on what line your using. I live about five minutes from a Green line T stop, but I’ve also been on the Red line (because that’s the most convenient line out of Harvard) and I would say the T is largely on par with the Metro or the Underground. But unlike those two subway systems, which largely take care of any transportation around their respective cities, the T’s main goal is to get people into downtown Boston and then out to major points of interest and/or suburbs. Unlike with the Underground or the Metro, there isn’t a lot of intersecting of rail lines so if you want to get from point A to point B and you have to switch rail lines you’re basically stuck going into downtown, switching lines**, and then heading out to where you actually want to go. That is if you’re unwilling to use buses.

I think one of the reasons I don’t like buses is that they seem more unreliable than trains. However because of the way the T works, buses and trains are basically on par for their unreliability in showing up on time.*** And because of the way the T is laid out half the time it’s quicker to take a bus, even factoring in traffic, than taking the train because the bus will be more direct than the train. Since I’ve been here in Boston I would say I spend an equal amount of time on buses and trains where as in DC or London I spent more time on trains than I ever did on buses. The buses get more crowded more quickly than the trains, but in terms of time it makes more sense to try and find a direct route on a bus than taking a circuitous route on a train.

It’s interesting though. I would say that the T is equally dysfunctional as the Underground and the Metro, so I feel right at home. The biggest difference for me is how often I take the bus when I really do prefer trains.

*Or it’s a rail replacement service

**Or switching from one branch of the line to another (yay for the Green line having four different branches)

*** Because you have no idea when a train or a bus is going to show up. At least with the buses you know they’re late and can reconcile that in your mind.

A quick summary of the drive up to Boston. It was semi-stressful (yay flash rainstorms on the New Jersey Turnpike!) and long. It was not interesting save for the flash rainstorm on the New Jersey Turnpike. Mom and I made it to Boston in one piece with only a minimal amount of getting lost (tricksy Boston roads are tricksy). I was more stressed out by unpacking and moving everything in than by the drive to be honest. And moving in and unpacking was incredibly stressful because I have no organizational skills or sense of space. Thankfully the major things (furniture, huge boxes) were taken care of by a moving company and Mom was there to help unpack a bit before leaving. Her leaving was incredibly difficult but was made up for in spades by the arrival of roommate from Buffalo (Melissa)’s friend arriving. This made getting to know Melissa ever so much easier in a weird way. Melissa is very cool and kind of reminds me of another friend of mine who’s hung on despite my tendencies to not communicate with people since high school.
Boston. Boston has confusing roads and tiny tram cars. However I feel that by the end of this school year I’m going to like Boston at least as much as I like DC (though not as much as I love London.) There are more Dunkin’ Donuts in this city than there are Starbucks in any other city which is kind of awesome. The law school is right across the way from a Dunkin’ Donuts and there is one across the street from the T stop I get off of to get to school. That’s how popular Dunkin’ Donuts is in Boston. However they do have Trader Joe’s in Boston and I have mastered the bus system well enough to get to the Trader Joe’s close to me. And just past that Trader Joe’s is the nearest Jewish neighborhood which means there is a fantastic bagel place I can go to for breakfast before I go grocery shopping. That and many other reasons is why I think I’m going to like Boston come the end of the year.
Both of my roommates are awesome. One actually enjoys cleaning the dishes and the other says what she thinks and doesn’t give a damn (though really that’s true for both of them.) They’re mature and smart and don’t believe in petty drama. They are, basically, the perfect antidote to last year’s roommate situation. I hope everything continues to go as well as it has been for the past few days, but I have high hopes that they will. Tomorrow I find out if the rest of my section are as awesome as my roommates.
That is all for now. I have my second day of orientation tomorrow which hopefully will be less dull than the first day. Quickly though one last thing: I love how cold Boston is or at least how much colder it is here than in Virginia. Bless the North.

Music Mashups: Testing the Limits of Copyright Law as Remix culture Takes Society by Storm by Emily Harper
Mashed Up Videos and Broken Down Copyright: Changing Copyright to Promote the First Amendment Values of Transformative Videos by Andrew S. Long
Using Social Norms to Regulate Fan Fiction and Remix Culture by Steven A. Hetcher
15 Megabytes of Fame: A Fair Use Defense for Mash Ups as DJ Culture Reaches Its Postmodern Limits by Aaron Power
The Girl Talk Dilemma: Can Copyright Law Accommodate New Forms of Sample-Based Music by David Mongillo

In the case of remixes and mashups, there seems to be fine line between the two genres and both are connected by the use of sampling of other works. Remixes can be described as songs where the instrumental background of the original song has been manipulated in some fashion (whether it has been completely recomposed or simply altered in some way) while the vocal line remains largely unchanged. Mashups, whether they are video mashups or song mashups, take elements from two or more different original composition and “mash” together elements from the source material to create an entirely new work. Remixes tend to be created for clubs and originated within DJ/club culture while mashups, particularly video mashups, are an extension of fan culture and can be seen as critiques on the works from which they are borrowing.
While both remixes and particularly mashups stem from a culture of sampling, there is a distinct dearth of case law concerning these two genres. As with sampling this can largely be attributed to the fact that neither the creators of remixes and mashups nor the original artists wish to help create any kind of precedent whether it be negative or positive. While television and movie production companies have taken steps to regulate the use of their copyrighted materials (largely by pressuring websites such as YouTube to take down any potentially offending material) no actual court cases have been presented. This has left lawyers and academics to postulate how best to deal with remixes and mashups without the worry of creating precedent that would favor either side.
The overall sentiment from legal academics is that to properly deal with the issues presented by remixes and mashups, copyright law as a whole needs to be overhauled. However experts are divided as to what direction such an overhaul should head in. One option would be to lean towards a more utilitarian view of transformative works. As it stands now, it is very difficult to argue that a work, such as a mashup or remix, is in fact transformative and therefore would fall under the fair use doctrine. According to the article by Aaron Power, mashups in particular should be analyzed as “quasi” parodies and like parodies should be able to use the fair use defense if and when such a case is presented to the courts. The other option, for those scholars that believe that mashups and remixes do not fall under the fair use doctrine, would have Congress or the record companies setup some kind of compulsory licensing system. Under this system creators of remixes and mashups would use their already existing community standards to ascertain what percentage of their income would be given back to the original authors. The other option concerning compulsory licensing would see a blanket licensing system similar to that used by BMI and ASCAP where mashup and remix artists would pay an annual fee for the right to sample copyrighted material. In both cases amateur mashup and remix artists would not have to pay these fees because their creations “cause no harm” and in fact should be legalized.
While it seems that legal scholars tend to prefer a softening of the definition of transformative work to include mashups and remix, there is no clear consensus as to how the genres of mashups and remixes should be treated under copyright law. The only agreed upon fact is that copyright law must be changed to deal with the issues presented by these two genres.

I haven’t been blogging. However that doesn’t mean I haven’t been writing or doing things. In fact I’ve been writing about various legal cases having to do with various legal ideas and issues pertaining to copyright. It’s hella fun and I thought some of you might enjoy it. I’ve only written about three topics, but they’re fairly lengthy, so that makes up for the sparsity. If you get confused by a term or want more details, there’s Wikipedia and dictionary.com. Enjoy!*
The practice of sampling within the rap and hip-hop music communities has been around since the late 1980s and since that point the issue of copyright and sampling has been something that has largely been avoided by the courts, at least when compared to the output of music created through the use of sampling. Since the advent of sampling those few cases that are either pursued by the original artist or manage to make it to court have been dealt with in a variety of ways by judges. Up until 2005 with the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films case judges could take one of the two different methods or combine those methods to reach a ruling. The first method would be to use the substantial similarity test where the song that was created with the use of sampling would be compared to the original song from which the samples were taken. In comparing the two songs the judge would use the criteria of whether or not the songs were similar in message, tone, and audience to find whether or not the songs are substantially similar. The other method in trying cases of infringement through sampling would be to use a de minimis analysis. This would involve the judge looking at the particular sample and determining whether the sampled used constituted a qualitative and quantitative part of the original song. If the sample did not, and would not be recognizable to an ordinary listener, then the case would be dismissed. Normally judges would use a combination of the two methods, as can be seen in the case Newton v. Diamond where the judge used a combination of the substantial similarity test and the de minimis analysis to determine that no infringement had occurred. However Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films created a new bright-line rule which aimed to simplify the issue of whether or not sampling constituted copyright infringement.
In Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films the judge ruled that in cases where the artists admit the sampling has occurred that “no substantial similarity or de minimis [inquiries] should be undertaken.” This rule would only apply to digital sampling, which makes up the majority of sampling done within the rap and hip-hop communities. The judge also stated that simply an artist should “get a license or do not sample.” In this case the judge was implying that any kind of sampling, no matter how small or even potentially unrecognizable, goes against copyright law and should be considered infringement (“even when a small part of a sound recording is sampled, the part taken is something of value. No further proof of that is necessary…”). Again, this rule would only apply to digital sampling.
In light of this case, as well as Newton v. Diamond which was decided in the same year as Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, a number of scholarly articles have been published discussing the merits of this bright-line rule and the way copyright law in general deals with digital sampling. While all scholars agree that the law needs to better incorporate the idea of digital sampling, the exact method of dealing with sampling is not as widely agreed upon. Some scholars support the Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films others, including Nimmer, believe that the judges were wrong in many of their conclusions namely the dismissal of the use of de minimis analysis and substantial similarity. In another article written by John Schietinger in the Fall 2005 issue of the DePaul Law review, the author vehemently disagreed with the judges dismissal of de minimis and substantial similarity analysis instead stating that a de minimis analysis should be conducted for issues of sampling. In doing so the author stated that it should be found whether the sample constitutes a trivial portion of the original song, and whether the sample is quantitatively recognizable within the context of the alleged infringing song and whether the two songs are qualitatively similar. Ultimately though, as the judges noted in their decision for Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films “where one stands [on this issue] depends on where one sits” and it is unlikely that the issue will be fully resolved any time soon.
Finally it should be noted that even with the 6th Circuit bright-line rule, most cases of sampling are settled out of court or “ignored” by artists within the community, particularly if the artist sampling isn’t well known or the song itself is not terribly popular.

*I feel I should point out that this is not legal advice, more a summary of how sampling and other ideas have been treated in court along with a little bit of analysis by yours truly. As with anything I write about the law, don’t take it as authoritative more the thoughts of a pre-law student. Basically: I don’t have a degree, so hire a real lawyer if you need real legal advice.

You might recall from my “big” graph of fandoms that one of those fandoms was Doctor Who. Based on the sites I frequent (EW.com, AV Club) this Saturday’s premiere of the 6th season* of DW is pretty well known. If not, this Saturday, 9pm, BBC America. Watch and be amazed (hopefully). But today the DW fandom got some pretty sad news. We’ve had a rash of deaths over the past couple of months of actors who played main characters during the classic series.** It’s been sad, but has left a pretty big hole in her passing, namely Sarah Jane Smith. She was a companion to the 3rd and 4th Doctor*** and came back in the new series for an episode before starting her own series “The Sarah Jane Adventures.” Sadly, the actress who played Sarah Jane, Elisabeth Sladen passed away today. The only happy thing to come out of this, and it’s really perversely happy, is that Sarah Jane and Elisabeth are a worldwide trend on Twitter. And here’s the proof:
(click for the full picture)
Anyway, I know I’ll be thinking about her this Saturday.

*If I were British I would have put series which is the same as season over here, but I didn’t want to confuse people. Also there was a “season” of specials when the last Doctor (David Tennant) was starting to bow out. However that doesn’t count as a real season, so this new season (and I keep wanting to say series) is the 6th one of the new run. More on that later.
**The original run of Doctor Who ran from 1963 until 1989 and is called the “classic” series. The new run of the show (which is referred to as “New Who”) started in 2005 with Christoper Eccelston playing the Doctor.
***The first Doctor was played by William Hartnell who was old. So when he was like “I’m out of here because I’m old” and the series was really popular the good producers over at BBC were like “We’ll just say that because the Doctor is an alien, he can ‘regenerate’ into a totally different person with a different face and a different personality and he can do that 13 times.” And so it was that we’ve had 11 Doctors, some who have stayed for a really long time (David Tennant, Tom Baker) and some who only stick around for one season (Christopher Eccelston.) Trust me when I say, you really don’t have to understand all of this to watch the series. But it can be helpful.****
****In case you were wondering, except for Tom Baker, I remembered all this information off the top of my head. Because I am a boss.

There was a time when I didn’t know what fandom was. This doesn’t mean I was a fan girl (I really was) I just didn’t know what fandom was or that I was a fan girl. I just knew I really, really liked the Beatles. I’ve since learned (in depth) what fandom is and that various fandoms have different names for their fans. For instance, when I really, really liked the Beatles I could have described myself as an Applescruff.* Not every fandom has a name for its fans and generally lady fans are called fangirls and gentlemen fans are called fanboys. Fanboys and fangirls got to cons and if you’re really obsessed you dress up as your favorite character. That’s called cosplay. Of course all this is a rather extreme version of fandom and there are a great many people (myself included) who take more of a back seat when it comes to fandom. I never got around to writing about this, but I am very much a lurker. This is because I’m naturally shy and have never really thought of taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet to break out of my shell. But I’m not alone in being a lurker. So those are kind of the two extremes of fandom at least from my perspective: Cosplayers and lurkers. As with everything there are loads of people who fall in between the two extremes and they probably make up the bulk of fandom.**
As you can tell by the chart I made (which doesn’t actually include everything) I consider myself a member of a whole ton of fandoms. That’s the thing about being a lurker: You can sample a lot of different things without giving up too much of yourself to anyone of them. I have friends who cosplay and go to cons and I can tell you they give a lot of themselves to a select few fandoms and pretty much invest completely in those fandoms. I on the other hand can be a part of 12 different fandoms and enjoy all of them to various degrees and not be invested completely.*** In my opinion fandom can be a good thing and a really awful thing and it depends entirely on how much of yourself you invest in the fandom. Fandom is great when it introduces you to like minded people and you make friends that can last a really long time. But fandom is really awful when you’ve become so invested in it that you start to blur the line between the reality and fiction. I’m not saying that investing in a fandom automatically means you’re going to go crazy. But there’s always the chance.
So how do I intervene in my fandom? I don’t. I’m a co-founder of the school’s sci-fi club (for what that’s worth) and I take a real interest in everything that goes in within my fandom. But I learned awhile ago that I’m not really meant to intervene, that I’m better off as a lurker. So, I took a photo of my fandom.

The “Family and Friends” section got a little squished because I tend to forget how many fandoms I was introduced to because of nagging from friends/family.**** Hopefully you can read my handwriting otherwise none of this is going to make sense and quite frankly my fandoms don’t make sense in list form. And if a fandom isn’t underlined it means that it hasn’t become inactive but I’m not currently “participating” in it either. So now I define active, inactive, and random outliers.

• Active – This means that I either a) follow one of the members/entity on Facebook/Twitter, b) am actively watching/listening/reading works having to do with the fandom or c) awaiting the return of said entity be it through new shows, new albums or tour dates I can actually go to.
• Inactive – This if fairly simple. I no longer give a rat’s ass about what this group/entity is doing. They once meant something but now I no longer care.
• Random Outliers – This group has no direct connection to any of the circled entities and generally speaking were discovered by pure chance.***** They may or may not influence participation in other fandoms, but generally speaking they just kind of exist in their own little worlds of awesomeness.

So that’s it. Those are my fandoms.

*Another example: Chiefs and Chiefettes for the Kaiser Chiefs, Whovians for Doctor Who and of course the most famous Trekkies for Star Trek.
**The crazies (cosplayers) are just more well known because they are crazy. And I say this as a friend of at least 3 hardcore cosplayers. This does not make them less crazy.
***I have some not fun experience in investing way too much into a fandom :cough:Kaiser Chiefs:cough: that did not end well. I kind of couldn’t listen to them for a good three months. I’ve since recovered and decided that being a lurker is better for my mental health.
****They don’t always nag. But sometimes they do. And then they force to me to watch things when I don’t pay attention to their nagging.
*****This is particularly true for the Killers who I discovered by watching VH1 on a snow day. “Mr. Brightside” is unlike anything I had ever heard before and Brandon Flowers is hella cute. A lot of my fandoms are based on the attractiveness of the members. It’s shallow, but you gotta start somewhere.

So last night I had my second to last radio show (ever) and quite appropriately I played last tracks from albums. In introducing the theme of the show I said that part of what constitutes a last track is the conditioning you get from listening to an album over and over again. I then went on to talk about other characteristics of last tracks including the fact that some just don’t know how to end and the use of fade-out by the group/artist. I’ve since been thinking about what I think contributes the most to what makes a last track a last track. I concluded earlish this morning that the reason a person might identify a last track as such is because they’ve been conditioned to thinking of it as a last track from listening to the album it finishes off over and over again. In our world of downloading what I consider to be the hallmarks of a last track (namely that sense of finality you get when listening to it) may not be as universal as it use to be. It’s not like with a classical piece where you go through certain structures (exposition, development, recapitulation, coda) that lead you to a sense of finality. I identify these songs as last tracks because I’ve listened to the albums enough to be conditioned to identify them as such. The reason I put “Come On Home” and “40′” from Franz Ferdinand’s first album together is because when I listened to the album (about a million times) I became conditioned to identify them as one big lump. So while there are things that are universal about last tracks, it’s also a very personal thing. However none of this changes the fact that songs that you identify as last tracks are hard to program within a radio show. Unless you put them last in which case it works just fine.
Playlist

1. Talking Heads – Road to Nowhere
2. The Clash – Train in Vain
3. Cake – Tougher Than It Is
4. Kate Nash* – Merry Happy**
5. Keane – Love Is The End
6. Ok Go – Bye Bye Baby
7. The Beatles – Tomorrow Never Knows
8. The Zutons – Don’t Ever (Think Too Much)
9. The Cribs – Things Aren’t Gonna Change
10. Franz Ferdinand – Come On Home/40′
11. The Beatles – Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End***

*Nifty fact about Kate Nash: She’s from Harrow, Middlesex which is where I lived when I studied abroad. Also she’s dating one of the lead singers of the Cribs Ryan Jarman.
**Another nifty fact: I can play the main piano theme that you hear at the beginning and the other piano theme from the end. Knowing how to play those two things lead me to learn the following about the song: It’s in the key of A major. Yay being a music major!
***The Beatles – Her Majesty